the intent is that the software screens for abnormal profiles and flags them so that the profile can go on to expert review.

…

the calculation of thresholds

is called an adaptive model

because while it starts with population norms

(see how the high and low red threshold lines start very wide)

as additional data becomes available

the model automatically adapts

(note how the gap between the high and low narrows)

the method originally proposed

was based on Bayesian inferences

which would open the possibility

to add multiple factors that further improve

the predicted confidence limmits

for example

the population based threshold

ranges from 12 to 17

but

once a rider has a hgb measured

at

13

it becomes much less likely

that their natural value

would ever reach 17

therefore

the upper limmit can be lowered

(at some point it the bayesian approach was not fully implemented or watered down somehow but the details are not entirely clear from the operating guidelines)

ironically as can be seen in the outputs above

slow changes

such as might be seen with long term micro dosing

has the effect of shifting the riders thresholds

to adapt to their doped physiology

while tapering the dope

would have the opposite effect

ie

dope fast or come off fast

get popped

otherwise it’s steady as she goes
…

now

with regards to armstrongs data

this author don’t have the software

and as such

can’t exactly run armstrongs data through it

and

inserting this discussion

into

that post

would have lost the attention

of anybody with a life

so

compromises were made

in simplifying the adaptive thresholds

down to a best fit aproach of static values

so that the

concept

(that the software flags extreme high and low values

not patterns of elevated or suppressed values)

could be illustrated

to

a much broader audience

veloclinic is the reincarnation of one of our favorite Twitter friends, @captaintbag1, whose tumblr blog posts were a kind of blank verse, Tecate-soaked haiku of truthiness that cut through the slick bullshit and to the very core of what is gloriously fucked up about the sport of cycling. Although the Cap may be gone (sort of), his Doctor tbag/Captain Hyde alter ego lives on, and we’re glad to share his pithy analysis here. Lest you think these are the idiot ramblings of a madman, we’d like you to know that the doc is a legitimate professional in the science of sports medicine, and a savant when it comes to doping analysis. You have been warned.

veloclinic is the reincarnation of one of our favorite Twitter friends, @captaintbag1, whose tumblr blog posts were a kind of blank verse, Tecate-soaked haiku of truthiness that cut through the slick bullshit and to the very core of what is gloriously fucked up about the sport of cycling. Although the Cap may be gone (sort of), his Doctor tbag/Captain Hyde alter ego lives on, and we’re glad to share his pithy analysis here.
Lest you think these are the idiot ramblings of a madman, we’d like you to know that the doc is a legitimate professional in the science of sports medicine, and a savant when it comes to doping analysis. You have been warned.
Nowadays Doc is much in demand as a legitimate authority-type commentator on the science of cycling performances, and his work has been featured in VeloNews, Outside online, and prominent sports medicine publications and symposia. His tumblr, in its current incarnation, may not be safe for cycling fans.Follow @veloclinic on Twitter

You Might Also Like

1 Comment

no_use_for_a_name says:February 25, 2013 at 4:41 pm

For those interested, the APMU is described correctly by veloclinic as I understand it by reading the WADA standards. However, the APMU is run by humans who are routing suspicious tests. Ashenden makes it clear that athletes have been caught with “too normal” values like Armstrong’s.
Based on scant information provided over time, it seems Saugy’s lab was providing the APMU service. IMHO, the samples were never passed. Someone, somewhere knew better than to pass Armstrong’s probably suspicious results.
The UCI was picking winners. How exactly? Not sure. The test suppression explains Sky’s **extraordinary** 2012.

About Cyclismas

A fresh take on cycling satire and commentary, Cyclismas is an alternative to traditional cycling news coverage; we challenge conventional cycling wisdom with a wide variety of voices, using a variety of media – all with integrity, but not without humor.